Tis Hazari Court Denies Temporary Maintenance to Wife, Citing Self-Sufficiency

 “With regard to the maintenance of the child, this court is of the view that in the presence of biological father of the child, the stepfather cannot be asked to maintain the child.”

In Delhi’s Tis Hazari Court, Dr. Neha Kheria, MM., presiding over Mahila Court-01, examined a petition lodged under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court’s preliminary assessment revealed that the petitioner was evidently highly qualified and gainfully employed. Consequently, the Court ruled out the petitioner’s eligibility for interim maintenance, recognizing her capability to support herself. Moreover, concerning the child’s welfare, the Court emphasized that in the presence of the child’s biological father, the stepfather bore no obligation to provide maintenance. As a result, the Court determined that the petitioner’s daughter was not entitled to maintenance from the respondent.

Background:

The petitioner stated that she entered into marriage with the respondent on April 30, 2015, following Hindu customs. This constituted her second marriage, and she had a daughter from her prior marriage. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had initially pledged to care for her daughter as his own, but his conduct changed soon after the wedding. He began discussing his relationships with other women, both Indian and foreign, while neglecting the petitioner’s daughter and refusing to cover her educational expenses.

In August 2015, the petitioner stumbled upon documents related to the respondent’s previous divorces. Upon confrontation, the respondent resorted to verbal abuse. On March 19, 2016, the respondent informed the petitioner of his intended trip to Pune and instructed her to vacate the house before his return. Subsequently, the petitioner relocated to her residence in Noida with her daughter. Despite her requests to relocate to the Mumbai address for her daughter’s education, the respondent declined to provide financial support.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent subjected her to mental and physical harassment, demanding dowry. She noted the respondent’s monthly earnings of Rs. 16 lakhs and additional sources of income. Relying on her parents for financial assistance, the petitioner asserted that the respondent willfully neglected his obligation to provide for her and her daughter.

Contrary to the petitioner’s claims, the respondent maintained that he had disclosed his prior divorces and refuted all allegations of cruelty and harassment. He argued against the petitioner’s entitlement to maintenance, citing her qualifications and professional experience.

Analysis, Legal Considerations, and Decision:

The Court observed the petitioner’s high qualifications and employment status, including a Master’s degree in HR from NIBM and a PMP certification. Additionally, the petitioner possessed two self-acquired properties and received Rs. 6,16,600 from the sale of mutual funds. During questioning, the petitioner disclosed investing Rs. 40 lakhs from her former husband in mutual funds, totaling Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the Court deemed the petitioner financially independent, thus ruling out her eligibility for interim maintenance.

Regarding the child’s maintenance, the Court reiterated that in the presence of the child’s biological father, the stepfather bore no obligation to provide maintenance. Considering the petitioner’s prior receipt of Rs. 40 lakhs in maintenance for herself and her daughter from her former husband, the Court concluded that the daughter was not entitled to maintenance from the respondent.